ALISON J. NATHAN
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Judge defendant |
54
Very Strong
|
90 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Defendant judge |
24
Very Strong
|
33 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Judicial |
21
Very Strong
|
66 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Defendant judge |
19
Very Strong
|
19 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
40 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
46 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Judicial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Christian R. Everdell
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Bobbi C. Sternheim
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Judicial |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Paula Speer
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
AUDREY STRAUSS
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
organization
U.S. government
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MAURENE COMEY
|
Prosecutor judge |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Judicial authority |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Judicial |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Judicial assignment |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
United States Government
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Judge defendant |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Judge defendant |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
None |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Professional |
6
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-06-29 | N/A | Judgment of conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2022-06-28 | N/A | Sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell | District Court | View |
| 2022-06-28 | Legal proceeding | Sentencing | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2022-06-28 | N/A | Date of sentencing for Ghislaine Maxwell. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2022-06-28 | Sentencing | Scheduled date for sentencing. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2022-06-28 | Sentencing | Ghislaine Maxwell was sentenced. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2022-06-28 | Sentencing | The scheduled sentencing for the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell. | United States Courthouse, S... | View |
| 2022-06-28 | Sentencing | The Court scheduled the sentencing for Ghislaine Maxwell for June 28, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2022-06-28 | Sentencing | Sentencing hearing for the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2022-06-28 | Sentencing | Sentencing proceeding for Ghislaine Maxwell before Judge Alison J. Nathan. | SDNY Court | View |
| 2022-06-28 | Legal proceeding | A sentencing proceeding for Ghislaine Maxwell is scheduled for Tuesday, which may need to be post... | United States District Court | View |
| 2022-06-28 | Sentencing hearing | Sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell in the case USA v. Maxwell. | United States District Court | View |
| 2022-06-28 | N/A | Date of Sentence | SDNY | View |
| 2022-06-27 | Court filing | A letter from Sigrid S. McCawley to Judge Alison J. Nathan was electronically filed with the court. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2022-06-26 | Court order | The Court issued an Order to which the Government's letter is a response. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2022-06-26 | Legal filing | The court order (Document 684) was filed. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2022-06-25 | Court action | The Court contacted the Warden for MDC regarding the Defendant's access to legal materials. | N/A | View |
| 2022-06-25 | N/A | Order filed and signed by Judge Nathan | New York, New York | View |
| 2022-06-24 | N/A | Filing of Court Order | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2022-06-24 | Legal filing | Filing of court order regarding victim statements at sentencing. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2022-06-24 | Legal filing | Filing of Document 682 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | New York, New York | View |
| 2022-06-24 | Court order | The Court denied the Defendant's request for redactions. | N/A | View |
| 2022-06-22 | N/A | Letter submitted regarding Victim Impact Statement | New York, NY | View |
| 2022-06-21 | N/A | Order signed and filed | New York, New York | View |
| 2022-06-21 | Legal filing | The court order (Document 665) was filed. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00002877.jpg
This legal document is a letter from the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (BSF) to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated March 22, 2021, regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. BSF objects to a subpoena issued by Maxwell's defense, arguing it is overly broad and lacks clarity on which victims require notice, while clarifying that the firm represents victims Annie Farmer (Minor Victim-2) and Virginia Giuffre. The firm states its intention to notify all Epstein victims it represents about the subpoena out of an abundance of caution.
DOJ-OGR-00002760.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated March 15, 2021, from attorney Christian R. Everdell to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The letter outlines the plan for submitting several reply memoranda, explaining that those containing confidential information will be redacted for the public docket. To facilitate this, the attorney will first submit both unredacted (under seal) and redacted versions to the Court and the government via email for review before any public filing.
DOJ-OGR-00020325.jpg
This document is a Motion Information Statement filed on May 17, 2021, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Attorney David Oscar Markus, on behalf of his client Ghislaine Maxwell, is submitting a 'Renewed Motion for Pretrial Release' or alternatively requesting a remand for an evidentiary hearing. The motion is opposed by the U.S. government, represented by AUSA Lara Pomerantz.
DOJ-OGR-00020316.jpg
A legal letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter refutes the government's claims about Maxwell's detention conditions, arguing they are overly restrictive and punitive. It details unsanitary conditions at the MDC, specifically a recent incident involving a severe sewage stench, overflowing toilets from the floor above, and plumbing issues in Maxwell's isolation cell.
DOJ-OGR-00002913.jpg
This document is a legal filing from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated April 9, 2021, regarding the case *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell*. The Government argues that the timing of a superseding indictment (S2) was based on new evidence—specifically involving 'Minor Victim-4'—rather than improper motives, and opposes any delay to the trial scheduled for July 2021. The letter also asserts that the new charges reinforce the Court's previous decisions to deny bail to Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00002907.jpg
This is a letter dated April 7, 2021, from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter strongly objects to the conditions of Ms. Maxwell's pretrial detention at the MDC, describing them as a form of "'pay-it-forward' punishment." It details a recent incident involving a pervasive sewage stench in her unit and argues that the government's portrayal of her confinement as superior is inaccurate and misses the point of her overly restrictive and unwarranted detention.
DOJ-OGR-00002901.jpg
This document is a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Judge Alison J. Nathan updating the court on Ghislaine Maxwell's confinement conditions at the MDC. It states that Maxwell receives 13 hours of discovery review time daily (more than any other inmate) with access to both a laptop and desktop. A footnote addresses complaints about missing emails, clarifying that an MDC investigation found Maxwell deleted them herself or archived them, rather than staff deleting them.
DOJ-OGR-00002874.jpg
This is a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated March 29, 2021, regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The government seeks to clarify a previous statement from October 2020 where it claimed no involvement by its prosecution team in an earlier 'Florida Investigation'. The letter now states that new information suggests the FBI's New York Office may have participated in that Florida investigation between 2005 and 2010, and the government is reviewing files to determine the extent of the interaction.
DOJ-OGR-00002873.jpg
This is a court order from United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated March 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The order directs the involved parties to meet by April 1, 2021, to either provide specific justification for proposed redactions or to inform the court that they are withdrawing their request for redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00002867.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated March 29, 2021, from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The letter serves to notify the court that a Grand Jury has returned a superseding indictment against the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government outlines its intent to explain the differences between the new and prior indictments and address the impact on discovery and pending motions, while also stating it does not intend to seek further indictments if the trial proceeds as scheduled on July 12, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00002820.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated March 26, 2021, from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan, who is presiding over the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecution informs the court of a recent ruling in a separate case, U.S. v. Schulte, where Judge Crotty denied a motion to dismiss the indictment that was 'virtually identical' to one filed by Maxwell. The government argues that this precedent supports their position that Maxwell's motion should also be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00002819.jpg
This is a legal letter dated March 26, 2021, from attorney Sigrid S. McCawley of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell*. The letter informs the court that BSF, representing victims, has conferred with the defendant's counsel and agreed to redact a small piece of information from a recent filing out of caution. BSF states it will remove these redactions if the court orders it to do so.
DOJ-OGR-00002811.jpg
This document is the second page of a legal filing (Document 182-4) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains a standard admonition regarding attorney conduct under Local Rules and provides a signature block for the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, United States District Judge. The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00002802.jpg
This document is a Criminal Notice of Appeal filed on March 24, 2021, in the Southern District of New York. Ghislaine Maxwell, represented by David Oscar Markus, is appealing the court's March 22, 2021 'Order on Third Motion for Release on Bail' to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The document confirms Maxwell's status as committed (incarcerated) and lists the Assistant U.S. Attorneys prosecuting the case.
DOJ-OGR-00002801.jpg
This document is the final signature page (page 3 of 3) of a court order filed on March 24, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan signed the order, which instructs counsel to confer regarding redactions for briefings and specifies formatting requirements for filings.
DOJ-OGR-00002762.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the criminal case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York, filed on March 18, 2021. The order addresses disputes between the Government and the Defendant regarding requests to redact and seal information in pre-trial motions. The Court outlines the three-part legal test from the Second Circuit it will use to rule on these requests, balancing the presumption of public access against factors like judicial efficiency and privacy interests.
DOJ-OGR-00002759.jpg
A legal cover letter dated March 15, 2021, from attorneys Cohen and Everdell of Cohen & Gresser LLP to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The letter lists ten reply memoranda being filed on behalf of their client, Ghislaine Maxwell, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. These filings relate to motions to dismiss indictments, suppress evidence (involving a redacted subpoena target), sever counts, and request a bill of particulars.
DOJ-OGR-00002745.jpg
This document is the second page of a legal letter filed on March 1, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Attorney Christian R. Everdell of Cohen & Gresser LLP requests Judge Alison J. Nathan extend the deadline for the defendant's reply to March 15, 2021. The document also notes that the trial is scheduled to begin on July 12, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00002727.jpg
This document is a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated February 4, 2021, providing a status update on Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC). The Government reports that Maxwell receives 13 hours of discovery review time daily (more than any other inmate), has access to both desktop and laptop computers, and maintains regular video-teleconference contact with her attorneys despite the suspension of in-person visits due to COVID-19.
DOJ-OGR-00005277.jpg
This is a court order issued by District Judge Alison J. Nathan on October 22, 2021, in the case of the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order announces the attachment of the court's draft jury questionnaire and voir dire, noting that it includes changes from a proceeding on the previous day. It also mentions an additional question has been proposed due to the District's COVID-19 protocols.
DOJ-OGR-00005274.jpg
A court order filed on October 22, 2021, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20-CR-330). The document outlines procedures for jury selection, including the administration of screening questionnaires in early November and the anonymization of jurors using assigned numbers. It mandates that the prosecution and defense confer to categorize prospective jurors into four lists regarding their eligibility for voir dire or excusal.
DOJ-OGR-00005268.jpg
A court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on October 20, 2021, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order sets the agenda for a telephone conference scheduled for the following day to discuss jury selection logistics and an unopposed request to seal the joint proposed juror questionnaire. The Judge also notes that the Court's draft questionnaire will be emailed to the parties immediately for discussion during the conference.
DOJ-OGR-00005267.jpg
This is the second and final page of a legal document (Document 360) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 19, 2021. The document was signed in New York, New York by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan. A Department of Justice Bates number is present at the bottom of the page.
DOJ-OGR-00005266.jpg
This is a court order filed on October 19, 2021, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order schedules a telephone conference for October 21, 2021, to discuss jury selection, providing public dial-in numbers while noting a separate line for involved parties (counsel, defendant, victims, family). It also explicitly warns against recording or rebroadcasting the proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00005264.jpg
A letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell*. The Government is submitting motions *in limine* under seal, requesting redactions to protect the privacy of victims and third parties, and specifically requesting that 'Section X' remain redacted until the conclusion of the trial.
Response Deadline
Order to respond to Defendant's letter by 5:00 p.m. on Oct 15, 2021.
Order on Redactions
Judge adopts proposed redactions for specific motions.
Order referenced as Dkt. No. 89
A previous court order from December 7, 2020, which the Defendant's filing was in accordance with.
Endorsement on Letter Motion
The Court sees no basis for sealing this letter. Defendant must justify sealing by Dec 2, 2020, or file publicly.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN
Legal arguments regarding 'The Material' and subpoena service issues.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity